CAT/C/56/D/591/2014 translation of the report that the complainant provided, the Inspector of Police gave instructions to arrest the complainant because he had failed to report to the police as ordered after his release. Furthermore, in his comments of 16 March 2015, the complainant maintained that he was not provided with any documents concerning his detention, as the police did not “file the case” and that he has provided all the information concerning his persecution and all available documents in support of his claims. However, in his request for ministerial intervention of 15 June 2015, he submitted that he had been in possession of a copy of the report since his release in September 2010. 10.10 In that connection, the Committee notes the State party’s submission that its domestic authorities had also assessed the said report and did not accept it as genuine, and concluded that it was not credible that the complainant had not submitted the document at an earlier stage while his protection claims were being assessed or reviewed. The Committee also observes that, in his comments of 8 November 2015, the complainant submitted that a lawyer had visited the Negombo Police Station and verified the authenticity of the police report. However, the Committee notes that, according to the copy of the lawyer’s letter dated 9 October 2015, the lawyer had not seen the original police report and had merely assessed the copy of the report that was sent to him by the complainant and concluded that it could have been issued by the Sri Lankan authorities. In any event, notwithstanding the issues regarding the authenticity of the police report, the Committee is of the view that the lawyer’s letter in question does not bring any additional information regarding the above-mentioned inconsistencies surrounding the report. 10.11 Regarding the complainant’s general claim that he risks being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka owing to his status as a failed asylum seeker, the Committee, while not underestimating the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with respect to the current human rights situation in Sri Lanka and treatment of, inter alia, failed asylum seekers from oversees, recalls that the occurrence of human rights violations in his or her country of origin is not sufficient in itself to concluded that a complainant runs a personal risk of torture.16 In addition, the Committee notes that, in its assessment of the complainant’s asylum application, the State party’s authorities also considered the possible risk of ill-treatment of failed asylum seekers upon return to Sri Lanka and is of the view that, in the present case, the State party’s authorities gave appropriate consideration to the complainant’s present claim. 10.12 In the light of the above, the Committee recalls that according to its general comment No. 1, the burden of presenting an arguable case lies with the author of a communication (para. 5). In the Committee’s opinion, in the present case, the complainant has not discharged this burden of proof.17 Furthermore, the complainant has not demonstrated that the State party’s authorities that considered the case failed to conduct a proper investigation into his allegations.18 11. In the light of those considerations, the Committee concludes that the complainant has not adduced sufficient grounds for it to believe that he would run a real, foreseeable, personal and present risk of being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka.19 16 17 18 19 See, for example, communication No. 426/2010, R.D. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 8 November 2013, para. 9.2. See communication No. 429/2010, Sivagnanaratnam v. Denmark, decision adopted on 11 November 2013, paras. 10.5 and 10.6. See, for example, communication No. 571/2013, M.S. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 10 August 2015, para. 7.9. Ibid., para. 8. 15